Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Closing the Gap: The Tripartite Structure of Sustainability as a Tool for Sustainable Education— A Systematic Literature Review

Altmetrics

Downloads

113

Views

44

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

18 March 2024

Posted:

19 March 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
(1) In an era where sustainable behavior is increasingly crucial, understanding the discrepancy between individuals' sustainability-oriented values and their actual behaviors, known as the inner-outer gap, is vital. This study explores the potential of the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability (TSS) framework to address this gap within the context of sustainable education. By reviewing literature from the databases APA, ERIC, and Web of Science, we systematically examined factors influencing sustainable actions. (2) Employing a qualitative content analysis approach, we analyzed 56 articles over a 15-year period, identifying 83 factors that either bridge or reinforce the inner-outer gap. These factors were categorized within the TSS framework, which segments sustainability-oriented actions into individual, social, and self-transcendent domains, alongside their activation points: stable, situational, or automated. (3) Our analysis revealed that self-focused factors often reinforce the gap, suggesting a hindrance to sustainable behavior. Conversely, self-transcendent factors consistently bridged the gap, promoting sustainability. Social factors showed variable impacts based on the ethical and sustainable context they were placed in, suggesting that the social environment's orientation significantly influences sustainable behavior. (4) The study concludes that the TSS framework offers a promising approach to advancing sustainability in education by facilitating a paradigm shift towards holistic and interconnected perspectives. This shift is critical for fostering sustainable behaviors, thereby contributing to the field of educational psychology and offering practical implications for educators aiming to nurture a sustainable future.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Education

1. How Can We Close the Gap?

It is common knowledge that we face multiple irreversible environmental tipping points which, when reached, lead to catastrophic results for humanity [1,2]. If education should act as an active instrument of social change and progress [3] the most important question of our times for educators today has to be: How can we guide individuals to act more sustainably [4]. The literature shows ample evidence that educational efforts concerning the preservation of the environment are failing to transform existing knowledge, attitudes and values into action [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Not the lack of knowledge or resources but this gap between inner processes like judgments, attitudes, intentions, knowledge and values and action in the outer world has to be seen as the foremost problem in education for sustainable development (=inner-outer gap).
Striving to achieve success in education for sustainable development (ESD), educators try to aim for realistic goals such as teaching about and practice recycling. However, these kinds of goals have faced concerns regarding their effectiveness whereby it is often referred to Meadows’s exploration of strategic interventions within systems that yield the most substantial influence [13]. Meadows introduced the concept of profound leverage points – transformative shifts are harder to achieve, yet their effects are so profound that the endeavor is inherently worthwhile. According to Meadow there are shallow leverage points in a system like changings in materials and processes, but also deeper leverage points such as changes in design (for example, by redefining goals or information flows) and, most effectively, changes in intentions such as mindsets and paradigms. In this line and addressing the inner-outer gap, Horcea-Milcu and colleagues claim for knowledge on how transformation research can engage with values as leverage points (2022) and Woiwode and colleagues claim for “empirical connections between people’s inner dimensions and transformation, and the impact on actual behavior” [14] (p. 854). But not only the connection, but also the nature of deeper leverage points themselves were underresearched as Abson and colleagues’ observed in 2017. Nevertheless, since then, significant developments have been made. Recently conducted research shows the nature of helpful paradigms and mindsets: Individuals demonstrate a heightened propensity for sustainable behavior under the influence of
  • a better human-nature connectedness [15] contributions to the Special Issue of ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2021, see [16],
  • being mindful [17],
  • a dark green humility [18] and/or
  • a focus on inner worlds and inner transformation [14,19,20] - see also the initiative ”Inner Development Goals” https://www.innerdevelopmentgoals.org/.
What reunites the paradigms that were shown to be helpful, is that they are all taking distance as Böhme and colleagues put it, from the current mechanistic paradigm in the West, which is “characterized by rationalism, reductionism, empiricism, dualism, and determinism” [21] (p. 2065). Böhme and colleagues argue that the mechanistic paradigm operates under the misconception that an observer can be independent from the observed system, which is never the case. By doing so, this old paradigm fails to understand and successfully address the complex systemic challenges that are typical in a globalized world. What is currently needed is wise action [22] in our volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous times [23]. The relevant literature therefore commends to shift to a relational and holistic understanding of interconnected living systems. If this paradigm is needed to sustainably act sustainable, the next question is: How can we educate towards this paradigm?

2. Theory

To answer this question we can benefit from the findings in ego-development research (gathered in [24,25]). It claims that individuals have a developmental center of gravity in their thinking, doing, and being – similar to different paradigms - that can be measured. Individuals go through different developmental stages one after the other following the line of three main shifts (preconventional, conventional and postconventional understanding of the world). The overview of the nine stages formulated by Cook-Greuter - based on [26] - can be found in Figure 1. In our view, the vertical green line could be seen as representing where the old paradigm in sustainability education begins to shift to the new.
Recognizing the fact that it is a developmental process, education would have to support the ego-development of individuals step by step to guide them to the wished paradigm. To get a better understanding of the theoretical construct of the stages, we quote some assumptions that ego development shares with other constructive theories of development ([22] p. 2, in modified order):
  • People’s stage of development influences what they notice and can become aware of, and therefore, what they can describe, articulate, cultivate, influence, and change.
  • All stage descriptions are idealizations that no human being fits entirely.
  • As healthy development unfolds, autonomy, freedom, tolerance for difference and ambiguity, as well as flexibility, self-awareness, and skill in interacting with the environment increase while defenses decrease.
  • Later stages are reached only by journeying through the earlier stages. Once a stage has been traversed, it remains a part of the individual’s response repertoire, even when more complex, later stages are adopted as primary lenses to look at experience.
  • A person who has reached a later stage can understand earlier world-views, but a person at an earlier stage cannot understand the later ones.
These notions indicate that it is not only that individuals in earlier stages (like nearly all students in K12) cannot yet impart the above-mentioned paradigms, but what is more, they have no capacity to really understand it. The same problem might appear for adults as Binder’s collection of partly representative studies on the distribution of ego-levels show: only 7 to 17% of adults are in post-conventional stages of ego-development [25]. To change education towards these personal development goals (= vertical development [27]) would necessitate fundamental changes in the educational systems. At the moment, education in most countries seems to be concentrated mainly on competencies/ employability [28], which is also labeled as horizontal development [27]. Interestingly, to change the focus towards personal development is not contradicting the development of skills or employability: It was shown that students with a later ego development stage have better academic results [29] and individuals with a later stage are more successful leader in companies [25]. Also, Human Resources managers complain that students in schools are not learning what is described to be middle or later stages propensities [22]. It seems like focusing on vertical development in education would show to be helpful in every direction.
Taken that into account it is not surprising, that a range of educational attempts and programs with the goal of vertical development / the shift of the new paradigm (see introduction) exist. Some of them are for example collected in the book “Revolutionizing Sustainability Education” edited by Ivanova and Rimanoczy [30]. In our observation, these initiatives mostly have the signature of case studies and the field of “education towards a paradigm change” does not yet have a clear direction or understanding of the foundational relationships. More understanding of how paradigmatic shifts happen in individuals are clearly needed. To contribute to this endeavor, we investigate the concrete influence that the different foci in the stages (the main bundles preconventional, conventional and postconventional) have on sustainable action. As the matter of sustainable action is a very timely one, it would be important to understand, if people even in earlier stages can be accompanied to act sustainable or to understand better what the respective reasons for acting or not acting sustainable under the respective paradigms are.
But additionally, one would have to take into account the research of Domain theorists, who found out that despite individuals have a center of gravity (a certain paradigm/stage), they draw from different domains/ give reasons for their behavior that can be assigned to paradigms in different stages depending on the given situation. Plus: the vast majority of human behavior seems to be guided by automatisms like heuristics or habits [31,32,33]. Therefore, which focus/emphasis becomes active seems to be depend on different factors that can be summarized in three activation points: stable inner stances, situational circumstances and automatisms inside a person. To explore these connections systematically is the aim of this article with the goal of making use of it for educational considerations. In terms of this exploration, we will first introduce a model (the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability), that structures the systematical exploration and then pattern the research within a greater model on explorations about sustainability.
Afterwards, we will describe the method that was used: a systematic literature review in which we extract empirical valid factors that have an influence on the inner-outer gap and subscribe them via qualitative content analysis to the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability. After the presentation of the results, we will discuss them by especially focusing and learning from relict factors. In the conclusion, we focus on possible impacts of this article on education and research.

3. The Tripartite Structure of Sustainability (TSS)

In a previous article [4], one of the authors considered several different concepts and models that seek to explain the emergence of sustainable action in a literature review. After none of the model was considered to explain the phenomenon sufficiently (the “silver bullet” [34] is still not found), she suggested a new approach to the question of why people act morally and sustainable by building on previous models. This approach is a model that considers two dimensions (see Table 2 and in the derivation from literature [4]), both of which were already indicated in the theory section. The first dimension subdivides three different foci which could also be seen as different paradigms: A focus on oneself, a focus on the social surroundings and a self-transcendent focus. These foci also represent main shifts in ego development theory (each of them subdivided into several stages).
  • The Focus on the self the reason for action is (implicitly) to maintain one’s own security, power or face (see Schwartz values of self-enhancement [35]). The goal is to optimize one’s own opportunities. The underlying paradigm is mechanistic, rational and competitive. There is hardly width in awareness; the focus is narrow and restricted to the own person.
  • In the social focus the action of a person is informed by the (implicit) desire to belong to a group and to uphold this groups wellbeing. Awareness is as wide as needed to include close “others”, usually of the direct social environment, or for example the own party or nation. Individuals orient themselves towards the values they interpret as underlying the group’s actions.
  • The term “self-transcendent” originates from the Schwartz Value Scale and includes values such as benevolence, humility, and universalism. The concept of a self-transcendent focus suggests that individuals see themselves as part of something larger than their own self or group. They possess a broad awareness that encompasses not only all humans across time but may also extend to the non-human world. Their actions are motivated by a desire to promote the well-being of this broader community. This perspective encourages a sense of connectedness and responsibility towards the welfare of others, transcending personal or immediate group interests.
Which focus/emphasis becomes active seems to be depend on different factors that can be summarized in three activation points, which are the second dimension in the table. They are characterized like this:
  • Stable: An action is performed primarily due to the values and attitudes of a person or group, which is the deep leverage point of intend according to Meadow’s model [13]: The underpinning values, goals, and world views of actors shape the emergent direction to which as system is oriented towards.
  • Situational: An action is performed primarily due to an occurrence in the outside, that is usually manipulable, closely interwoven with the action and recognized as important. In Meadow’s model this situational activation is a shallow parameter similar to materials or feedback, defined as interactions between elements within a system that drive internal dynamics.
  • Automated: An action is performed primarily because of a programmed system inside a person like psychological mechanisms, biases, emotions, habits or scripts. The mechanism itself goes mostly unrecognized, but are similar for all humans. The mechanism itself is not changeable, whereas the trigger and outplay are inter- and intra-individually different. Situational activation and automatisms are closely interwoven, because situations outside a person are “picked up” by mechanisms inside - like arising emotions of a student because of very strict recycling regulations. Regarding higher cost of a sustainable product, a person might react to the higher price with loss aversion. We see higher cost as situational factor and loss aversion as an automatism in this case. In Meadow’s model, automatisms can be seen as deep leverage points in the human system, such as a design or structure in the background that manages feedbacks and parameters.
The two dimensions presented build on a 3x3 table, the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability (TSS [4], see Figure 2).
Wamsler and colleagues’ proposed the “Model of change for internal–external transformation towards sustainability”, which emerged from a comprehensive literature review [19]. The model is “ontologically and epistemologically grounded in interdisciplinarity, multidirectionality, and interdependency, acknowledging the complexity of transformation processes” (p. 8). Thinking from their model, our research aims to better understand the connections between what they call the “internal” and the “external”. Wamsler and colleagues see the boundary between internal and external as artificial, just applied for simplicity - as for example internal dimensions are often inter-subjectively (e.g., socially defined) and qualities/capacities are often enacted (p. 6). In our model, this assumption is reflected in the fact that there are foci as well as activation points and in the addressed problem that situational activation and automatisms go hand in hand. We will further reflect on this notion in the discussion. By positioning our research within Wamsler and colleagues’ model, we aim to contribute to their endeavor to create a broader, overarching framework that allows for cross- and transdisciplinary co-creation. We also answer Woiwode and colleagues call for research on the “empirical connections between people’s inner dimensions and transformation, and the impact on actual behavior” [14] (p. 854).
After these classifications, we concretize our research questions. All of them focus around the contribution of the TSS to educating towards the new paradigm. At first, we want to know if the model holds the potential to structure the findings of the field of sustainability research well and ask:
  • Is the TSS as a model able to fathom all empirical valid factors influencing the inner outer gap that we find in literature?
Second, we want to know if the TSS allows predictions and thus allows for more targeted research, which would be the case if empirical evidence can be found for the direction of impact assumed in the model (focus on the self leads to unsustainable behavior etc.)
  • Is the TSS and the directional assumption it contains supported (by the direction of the factors’ effects – sustainable or unsustainable)?
Both questions should at the end lead to a conclusion on what educators could do through education to support students in closing the inner-outer gap and act sustainable.

4. Methods

To approach these questions, we conducted a qualitative data analysis of factors that were proven to influence whether a person acts sustainable. To find the factors we conducted a systematic literature review. The factors were then assigned to the TSS and checked in the direction of their influence.
In regard to the factors, our goal was to collect a wide variety that empirically showed to have an influence on the inner-outer gap (under this term we subsume the gap between motions like judgments, attitudes, intentions, knowledge and values on the “inner side” versus actual behavior and action on the “outer side”, see [4]). The intention was to identify factors that either bridged the gap towards sustainable action or reinforced it with the outcome of unsustainable behavior. In the systematic literature review we broadly followed the PRISMA recommendations of 2020 to improve validity and transparency and to avoid bias in the selection and analysis of the reviewed studies [36].
Our first of three methodological steps articles in late October 2020 was to retrieve potentially relevant publications. We thereby used the following educational and psychological databases: (a) the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); (b) the American Psychological Association’s largest database, including PsycINFO, the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and APA PsycArticles. In addition, because we expected to find relevant research related to global challenges in other fields, we used (c) all databases in the Web of Science Core Collection. Via Google Scholar and ResearchGate we checked whether we had missed any relevant research areas not covered by our selected databases; this did not appear to be the case. We included the following most frequently used terms in the literature on the inner-outer gap: knowledge-action gap OR value-action gap OR intention-action gap OR attitude-action gap OR judgment-action gap. To keep the amount of data manageable we set the timeframe to cover the last 15 years (2005 to 2020).
In 2020, the search parameters returned 116 potentially relevant articles from the databases. Our inclusion criteria were papers that focused on sustainability, morality in relation to sustainability or morality in general (as we see acting sustainably as a moral issue). We excluded papers about morality in specific situations not related to sustainability, such as academic dishonesty, and papers that had neither moral choices nor sustainability in focus. We deliberately did not exclude theoretical papers because they turned out to point to several empirically relevant factors that the empirical papers did not cover (see inclusion criteria for the extracted factors). The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the papers were reviewed by two researchers independently through reading the abstracts and scan-reading the articles. All researchers agreed fully on the final selection. In some papers we found references to further (meta-)analyses that promised to cover an even wider range of factors. Using the so called snowball principle, we reviewed the abstracts and scan-read those articles. If they appeared to meet our inclusion criteria, we included them in our research corpus. The final corpus consisted of 56 articles. Figure 3 shows the article selection procedure (illustrated in the PRISMA-scheme [37]).
In Table S1: overview reviewed literature (supplementary material), the selected articles are described in more detail to provide an overview: The table shows the search terms under which the articles were found, the segments to which we attributed the articles, the topics and methods of the articles and the originating universities. In the case of the empirical articles and meta analyses, the table also shows the target group, size and scope region of the samples, as well as how action was measured and whether the measurement was problematized.
The second methodological step was to develop the inclusion criteria for relevant factors that had an influence on the inner-outer gap and to extract these factors. Therefore, we first systematically collected all factors. The quality of the findings and conclusions were diverse; some statements, for instance, amounted to theoretical hypotheses, some were carefully developed based on empirical data and still others had been tested and proven in one or multiple empirical designs. This necessitated the setting of a standard for considering a finding empirically valid. We decided to not only collect the factors of studies conducted in the articles but also well cited and summarized empirical evidence within the more theoretical articles. However, due to available resources, we saw us unable to follow every hint for a factor in depth. Therefore, as a compromise, we developed the following criteria for the inclusion of a factor to ensure empirical validity. The factors that bridged or reinforced the inner-outer gap had to meet at least one of these criteria:
  • Empirical data were generated within the reviewed article itself in an empirical design that met scientific standards.
  • A factor that was not tested in the research itself was shown to be supported by at least three empirical studies. To find out whether the cited research was empirical, we read the titles and abstracts of the cited studies. We considered three articles to be sufficient to eliminate the risk of false-positive factors (because of for example problematic research designs or a misunderstanding of citations).
  • The cited empirical source was a meta-analysis.
The references of in this paper “empirically valid” signify factors meeting this standard. Additionally, we only collected factors that showed direct influence or mediated influence on sustainable or moral action within the articles. A mediated factor was for example in Klöckner’s model [38] perceived behavioral control which influenced action through the factor intention. Factors that showed only influences on, for example, moral judgment but that were not further tested with respect to their influence on (intention to) action were excluded, as well as too general factors like “intention” or “personal norm”, which fathoms no specific content (intention to do what? which personal norm?). Concerning the question of how action was measured, we considered self-reported data and even the measurement of concrete intention for future action as valuable. As if not to measure real action is problematic, we hereby follow Hertz and Krettenauer [39], who showed that self-reports as well as reported intentions indicate a higher probability that real live action will be taken, as if – of course – the prescribed effect is not the same, but lower. This decision made it impossible to indicate the extent to which a factor truly bridges or reinforces the gap in numbers. We therefore refrained from the attempt to quantify the power of factors, but did so also for a second reason. The intentional inclusion of different strands of research on the inner-outer gap automatically brought the problem of incommensurability: The strands and the use of concepts in them are so different that they could not be compared in regards to their outcome. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the factors were settled, a second in-depth evaluation of the 56 articles was conducted, and all empirically valid factors that resonated with the criteria above were collected. This procedure resulted in a corpus of 83 empirically valid factors that showed an influence on the inner-outer gap. The factors were extracted and captured in Table 2 - together with their definition, their source, their impact on the inner-outer gap and how they were retrieved (see supplementary material).
In the third and last methodological step, the factors were coded towards the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability by three coders independently. They followed the guidelines of qualitative content analysis by Mayring [40], which is mainly deductive but also allows inductive extraction. The coder manual followed the given descriptions of foci and activation points in the theory-section. The coding of the activation points resulted in a Fleiss’ Cappa of .69 and the coding of the different foci in a Fleiss’ Cappa of .60 between all three coders. According to Landis and Koch [41], both matches are substantial. Because Cohen’s Cappa between Coder 1 und Coder 2 was with .85 regarded as “almost perfect” [41] and Coder 1 read all articles in depth and knew the background of each factor, we followed her codings for the article (captured in Table S2, Supplementary Material due to formatting reasons).

5. Results

Of the articles included in the literature review, 35% originated in Europe (mostly the U.K.), 26% in the U.S., 12% in Australia and New Zealand, 12% in Asia, 8% in Canada and 3% each in South America and India; 39% of the articles were of a theoretical nature or consisted of literature reviews, and 61% were empirical. We noted that 17 of the research papers used self-reported data or collected intention instead of action, and only half of them (9 of 17) addressed the suboptimal character measurement of action. When it was mentioned, ethical concerns and methodological difficulties were named as rationales for this approach. The evaluation of all reviewed articles as described in the methods section can be found in Table 1 in the appendix.
The review returned 83 factors influencing the inner-outer gap that we saw as empirically valid. As they were not of the same granularity, we depicted each the smallest entity that was shown to have an impact and that met the criteria. Sometimes an article pointed out a factor that another article elaborated in more detail. In this case, we registered both the umbrella term and the factors that went into more detail (for example we captured the several times mentioned factor “self enhancement values” as an umbrella term, but also the in one article examined “power” as a singular factor). Each short descriptions of the factors together with other information are gathered in Table S2: Factors (Supplementary Material). We categorized all factors into the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability as summarized in Table 3.
Table 2. Factors influencing the inner-outer gap sorted to the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability.
Table 2. Factors influencing the inner-outer gap sorted to the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability.
Focus on the self Social Focus Self-transcendent Focus No specific focus
stable Preconventional stage, self-enhancement values (achievement; power; face; hedonism); selfishness; “Enviro-Sceptic” cluster; “Market Liberalist” cluster; extrinsic religiosity, amplifying subjective well-being through a green self-image (11) Socially responsible families; love for children and grandchildren; social norms; pressure to keep up with resource-consuming trends; demonstrating morality to others; mistrust (6) Post-conventional stage; self-transcendence values (benevolence; universalism; humility); New Environmental Paradigm; feeling of connection with nature; emotional bond between a child and nature; seeing forest “as life”; moral identity; “Committed Greens” cluster; “Ethical Conformist” cluster; intrinsic religiosity; “willingness to sacrifice for the environment”; unselfishness; moral attentiveness; self-conscious moral orientation (17) “Ambivalent Bystander” cluster; “Internally Conflicted” cluster; “Material Greens” cluster (3)
situational Consumed time; monetary costs; practicability; encouraging measurements (4 ethics-orientated social contexts; ethical leaders; unethical social contexts; unethical leaders; role models; ecological behavior in neighborhoods; information about positive social norms; trust felt towards the source of the information; high information quality; competence-based trust; integrity-based trust; enabling measurements; engaging measurements; exemplifying; intrinsic (social) rewards (15) awareness of consequences; ascription of responsibility; immediate information given about individual consumption; information labels on products; reminders like phone calls or poster); “discretionary time” (6) perceived behavioral control (1)
automated fear; felt pressure because of suddenness or unexpectedness; status quo bias; loss aversion; satisficing; risk aversion; sunk-cost effects; desire for extrinsic rewards; temporal and spatial discounting; (9) sympathy; empathy; tendency to confirm to social norms; “Boomerang- Effect”; Free-Riding Effect and Social Loafing (5) moral judgement disposition; moral sensitivity (2) Bayesian reasoning; Occam’s razor; inductive inference; availability bias (4)
We were able to classify 76 of the 83 factors in regard to their focus (92%) All factors could be categorized as either stable, situational or automated (100%). 21 of the 24 factors we related to a focus on the self showed a clear direct relationship to immoral/ unsustainable behavior (88%) - only “encouraging measurements” had a clear positive impact on sustainability (4%). “Desire for extrinsic rewards” and “status quo bias”, were ambivalent (8%). Under the 26 factors with a social focus, 18 showed a positive influence on sustainable action (69%). Two factors were ambivalent (social norms and the tendency to conform to social norms, 8%), and six showed a clear negative impact (pressure to keep up with resource-consuming trends, mistrust, unethical social contexts, unethical leaders, Boomerang-Effect, Free-Riding Effect and Social Loafing, 23%). The data showed that if the social surrounding showed or supported sustainable/ethical behavior, individuals acted sustainable/ethical. If the social immediate expressed or supported the opposite, individuals acted in an unsustainable/unethical manner. All 25 factors that we saw as leading towards a self-transcendent focus in the reviewed papers had a direct or indirect positive influence on ethical/sustainable action (100%).
There were eight factors that did not apply to the foci (see column “Not specifically assignable”). As stable factors the clusters of “Ambivalent Bystander”, “Internally Conflicted”, and “Material Greens”, the situational factor “perceived behavioral control” and the automatisms “Bayesian reasoning”, “Occam’s razor”, “inductive inference” and “availability bias”. The terms in Table 3 are further described in the supplementary material, Table S2.

6. Discussion

In research it is sometimes even more interesting to look at the misfits of an idea than to focus only on the fits. Therefore, in the discussion section we mostly investigate on the exceptions and relict factors, already having the use for educational purposes in mind, which we will elaborate on after the conclusion. But before diving into the exceptions, we have to address the limitations of our research. The 83 extracted factors do not mirror the most up-to-date state of research or encompass the entirety of the research landscape due to the constraints of a confined time frame and restricted search parameters (the research was conducted in 2020 and we did not include “behavior/behaviour” instead of action or other inner parameters that might have been worth exploring). Additionally, not all factors have been independently verified through primary sources by the authors. Although our inclusion criteria mandated a triple validation from distinct sources, the potential for false positives persists. Therefore, it is appropriate to see the content encapsulated within the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability (TSS, Table 3) as an introductory exposition. To achieve a more robust reliance and integration of this content, it is desirable to reproduce the research unburdened by these limitations. Our first investigation shows that this endeavour would necessitate many resources.
The first investigation are the factors with a focus on the self that exceptionally lead to sustainable behavior. This is interesting, because it might show a way to guide people who are in the earliest stages of ego development to act sustainable. The only factor that had a clear positive direction is “encouraging measurements”. With that term, Anable and colleagues refer to the use of information, education, incentives, penalties and the law to encourage (motivate), and where necessary, enforce behavioral change. There are overlaps with the two factors that were ambivalent: desire for extrinsic rewards and status quo bias. They are ambivalent because they usually lead to unsustainable behavior, but were also used to decoy participants into sustainable behavior in the reviewed articles. The status quo bias is the tendency to stick to default settings or avoid making decisions, especially when things become too complex. In the literature this was used by preselecting a green energy provider in an online form which had the effect that participants chose the green option more often [42,43]. The desire for extrinsic rewards was used to make people choose ecofriendly alternatives for example by providing financial incentives. However, Frederiks and colleagues reported that these rewards – “are often surprisingly short-lived and/or inconsistent with behavior reverting back to baseline levels upon removal of the reward” [8] (p. 1388). The authors cited literature that showed that people even responded negatively to extrinsic rewards. This might be the reason why those measurements are considered to be shallow leverage points (see theory-section). It seems that using encouraging measurements, the status quo bias and extrinsic rewards has an effect but it would be too much to rely on it.
Further relicts were automatisms that had a positive influence upon sustainable action in research, but that did not apply to any of the foci.
  • Bayesian reasoning: anticipating the likelihood of future events via an internal model constructed from past situations [44]
  • Inductive inference: extracting meaningful mental representations from sparse data, which may be too sparse to derive a valid representation [44]
  • Availability bias: The inclination to “draw on readily available information that is easily accessible in memory and springs to mind quickly, […], especially personal anecdotes of family/friends, customer testimonials, and recent, frequent, vivid, salient, emotive or concrete examples” [8] (p.1388)
  • Occam’s razor: preference for simple over complex explanations [44]
All of these factors are automatisms as well as the two ambivalent factors in “focus on self”. Additionally,” automatisms” was the category where the most disagreement among the coders in terms of their focus happened. We see a tendency that automatisms are rather undirected in their focus compared to the stable and situational factors. This is also supported by the fact that they were most often used to manipulate the behavior of others. We think that in sustainability research and education, automatisms must therefore be treated with caution. Ignoring them does not seem to be an option: They appear to be very powerful and useful, as we have to assume that individuals deal with most conflicts - including those related to sustainability - in an automated way, mainly even without recognizing it [31,32,33]. The notion that automatisms are important, but often unfocused, makes it necessary to revise the proposed TSS. We suggest to include a bar at the bottom that collects undirected automatisms or gives space to present the positions of the automatism (to which foci do they lead mostly?) more dynamically. If something similar were to be applied to the “situational factors”, it could also solve the case with the relict factor “perceived behavioral control” which is “a measure that captures to which degree people have the opportunity and ability to perform a certain behavioural alternative.” [45] (p. 1029). If individuals have the impression of behavioral control (/choice, for example to be able to use an alternative to driving by car), it positively influences sustainable action [38]. We see having a choice as not automatically leading to one of the three foci. Researchers as well as educators would have to assume that the non-designated factors are impactful but probably only lead to a certain focus in connection with other factors (as is depicted in [38,46]). The proposed revised version of the model is shown in Figure 4.
Another group of factors that did not apply easily to the TSS are segmentations that were built to fathom groups of individuals who share the same values/attitudes/actions. Lee et al. [47] discriminated 4 clusters of people in their research on market decisions and Newton and Meyer three [48]. Each two clusters were clearly assignable to a focus, but the others could not be localized (see Table 4). All unclassified clusters entail descriptions of inner conflicts. For all three of them, the effect direction is the same: The inner-outer gap is sometimes, but rarely and inconsistently, bridged.
It seems that while it is easy to allocate single factors, it becomes complicated when some of them are entangled as they are in the clusters. This is no problem, if one sees the model as not intended to capture constructs that are composed of different factors. But it points to something deeper that is very relevant: the question of how the factors interact with each other. This interaction cannot be described in easy terms but it seems like the fact is increasingly being accepted, that the interplay between (different) inner instances of a person and/or the outside is complex. Jennings and colleagues for example see the understanding of moral self as a “complex amalgam of moral constructs and processes” [49] (p. 105) and this perspective as an emerging trend in moral psychology and self-psychology in general (p. 105). Considering this idea, it is not reasonable to assume that a decision regarding sustainable action is influenced only by one of the factors we reported above. Complexer models picture how diverse factors interact with each other, e.g., [38,49]. Similarly, domain theorists [50,51] have collected evidence that one situation can activate reminiscence in the personal, the social and the universal domain at the same time and individuals struggle with weighing these with each other.
The relict clusters support the idea that the most interaction happens within a social focus. That seems logical: In most cases, an individual’s social surroundings endow them with diverse views and contradictory opinions. People are unable to orient themselves towards all of these at once. Supportive of this idea are the findings of Babutsidze & Chai [52] who showed that ecological behavior in neighborhoods promoted “green behaviors” among individuals, but only visible green behavior and particularly in densely populated regions. What triggers sustainable action are therefore only those close others who might be watching. In our view, integrity is only possible within an early self-focus (full focus on the self) or a late self-transcendent focus (full focus on the “oneness of everything”). In the light of conflicting factors, research on the inner-outer gap should ask for different factors that are in conflict and explore when individuals prioritize which factor. The TSS is able to gather factors that play a role in this complexity in categories. The separated categories help to investigate how elements interact with each other. Research for example allows the assumption that situational and automated factors set stable elements such as attitudes and values in motion. This idea is depicted in ego-development research, in the definition of a person’s stage. Cook-Greuter defines it as the “level of ego maturity to which a person has consistent access to under ordinary circumstances without special support conditions or under unusual stress.” [27] (p. 7f) The idea that situational and automated reactions gravitate around a stable inner stance was also often addressed in the reviewed literature, e.g., [38,46,49]. Jennings and colleagues for example found that unethical behavior of coworkers has a lesser impact on individuals with higher moral centrality [49] (p. 36), which we see as a stable self-transcendent focus. This might answer Horcea-Milcu and colleagues’ call in 2022 [53] for knowledge on how transformation research can engage with values as leverage points. The findings in the TSS suggest that values connected with a self-transcendent focus lead to sustainable action, if they are not disturbed and in best case supported by special situational or automated parameters as for example depicted in Table 3. Also, as we speculated above, automatisms seems strongly depending on situational factors.
In summary, the factors showing to have an influence on the inner-outer gap that could not be applied helped to understand the interplay of the different factors. In our view, the data and discussion allows the following hypothesis:
  • Individuals act sustainable, if they have a stable self-transcendent focus and not too many situational or automated factors point towards a focus on the self /an unsustainable or unethical surrounding.
  • When individuals have stable social focus, they act sustainable if the social surrounding they are orientated towards behaves ethical/sustainable, and not too many situational or automated factors point towards a focus on the self.
  • With a stable focus on the self, individuals may (inconsistently and short-lived) act sustainable if the situational surroundings (like laws, rewards etc.) were manipulated to steer their automatisms accordingly.
These are, of course, preliminary hypotheses which would need to be tested thoroughly.

7. Conclusions

This article had the aim to find out how the Tripartite Structure of Sustainability contributes to an education towards a new paradigm in (sustainability) education. All factors that were empirically shown to have an influence on the inner-outer gap could be classified as stable, situational or automated in regard to their activation point. Eight factors could not clearly be allocated in regard to their focus (self, social or self-transcendent), which we discussed. It can be concluded that the model is overall able to structure the findings of the field of the inner-outer gap in regard to sustainability. The limitations of the first version of the TSS are eliminated in the second version suggested in the discussion. The directional assumptions the TSS contains were overall supported by the direction of effect of the assigned factors: 23 of 24 (96%) factors that emphasized the self had a reinforcing influence the inner-outer gap (as if two of them were ambivalent in their effect). Of 26 factors with a social focus, 18 showed a positive influence on sustainable action, two were ambivalent and six showed a clear negative impact. Whether the factors bridged or reinforced the gap depended on whether the social environment was perceived as morally or sustainable. All 25 self-transcendent focused factors had an indirect or direct positive correlation with ethical or sustainable behavior. The clear direction of the impact can be seen as empirical evidence for the assumption in the model: A focus on the self overall reinforces the inner-outer gap and leads to unsustainable behavior, a self-transcendent focus bridges the gap and leads to sustainable behavior, in a social focus individuals orient themselves towards their perceived social surrounding. We discussed the exceptions from this overall tendency and found relevant interactions between the different sections. Overall, the TSS seem to allow predictions and therefore opens the way for more targeted research: It might help to construct research designs that have potentially more predictive power in explaining sustainable action than the current models. This is mainly because they would not consider a whole population “all the same” but use a segmentation approach [54] for each of the three foci as a group on its own, see [4]. In addition, they would make it possible to create research designs to explore the influence of groups of factors to others (for example a value in relation to automatisms and the situation, see hypothesis at the end of the discussion section). Another interesting influence in research comes from the fact that the TSS has a certain structure (a 3x3 table). This invites to complete the “Gestalt” and one could ask “what could be another stable factor in this sector that we have not thought about yet”? All these possibilities would contribute to Woiwode and colleagues’ claim to find “empirical connections between people’s inner dimensions and transformation and the impact on actual behavior” [14] (p. 854).

8. Consequences for Educators

After having answered the research questions, we want to use the last section of this paper to pick up the introductory thread and ask what educators can draw from our findings to help their students in closing the inner-outer gap/ to act sustainable? A straightforward takeaway could be:
  • Avoid what attracts individuals into focusing only on themselves (stable, situational or automated).
  • When creating educational surroundings, focus on establishing ethical and sustainable environments (=situational factor). Also, support social automatisms, and stable social factors that point towards sustainability.
  • Try to support the development of self-transcendent foci in individuals (stable, situational or automated), but have in mind that later paradigms cannot be understood in earlier stages of ego-development: Everyone would have to be met where they are in terms of their inner development.
We elaborate on these notions a little more:
  • As can be seen in Table 3, we think that a part of what draws people into a focus on the self are the self-enhancement values achievement, power, face and hedonism and also the emotion fear. In our estimation the European school system that was spread around the world as a result of colonization supports those values and this emotion in students [55]. The question of how to educate not supporting them may feel confusing, but there are interesting approaches, as we will show later. In addition, it seems to be important that students become aware of the automatisms that lead to focus on the self because of the big impact they have. What poses a problem is the fact that automatisms usually go unrecognized (see discussion on exceptions). They therefore elude both research and reflection. Creative ways must be found to work with them in education, to make people aware of their automatisms. Only then, we believe, can individuals work on escaping the pull of automatisms that lead to self-focus and unsustainable behaviors such as fear, loss aversion, or the desire for extrinsic rewards. It might have an effect, if educators make students sensitive for the un- or subconscious parts of their decision making process and help them to become aware of automatisms like habits and scripts and their influence on themselves and the world. Clearly, more research is needed on automatisms and what gives them direction toward a focus. Neuroimaging might be a way to do research on automatisms as some interesting findings show [56,57].
  • As all educational institutions are at the same time social surroundings of the students who work and live in it, educational stakeholders have a lot of influence if they create a sustainable social environment in their institutions. We see ethic-orientated contexts and leaders, positive role models, information about positive social norms, providing trustable information and informants, exemplifying and everything else that was found respectively in Table 3 as helpful instruments. At the same time, educators should avoid what was found to hinder sustainable behavior having a social focus like the Boomerang or the Free-Riding Effect.
  • When trying to accompany individuals towards a stable self-transcendent focus/ the new paradigm it has to be kept in mind, that this is a later stage of a developmental process (see “theory” section). In our opinion, to reach the goal of the new paradigm in sustainability (see instruction) would necessitate to prioritize vertical development against the (also needed) acquisition of competencies in education. Ego development research does not see competencies as contributing to the transition into a new paradigm [27]. There are some notions that are important when focusing on vertical development: Chandler and colleagues showed that educational programs are only useful if they are designed for the next stage a person is at or the stage after [58]. Neither a design for earlier, the actual or later stages are helping in the development. So, at first: To support vertical development would necessitate knowing the center of gravity a person has. The stage could be measured with the robust Washington Sentence Stem Test [24]. Leverage points into the next center of gravity seem to be to consciously and systematically dealing with the thinking, doing and being of the next stage[58], which would have to be considered in the design. Two additional assumptions of ego development theory play a role and would need to be reflected [27] (p. 2f):
    • “While vertical development can be invited and the environment optimally structured towards growth, it cannot be forced. People have the right to be who they are at any station in life”.
    • “Development occurs through the interplay between person and environment, not just by one or the other. It is a potential and can be encouraged and facilitated by appropriate support and challenge, but it cannot be guaranteed”.
Therefore, the accompaniment in vertical development is always to be seen as an offer. This is especially the case because individuals experience stage transformations, especially between the three main shifts outlined in the TSS as foci, as very challenging and even frightening [27]. As the whole way of seeing and being in the world changes, this transition needs to be well accompanied. All in all, it seems that we could learn a lot from how indigenous communities transfer knowledge and culture into the next generation. Their way of educating is far more relational and also has many other characteristics that are described in the new paradigm (see [55]). Having these notions in mind, additional research is needed to create offerings and to measure their success.
We hope that our research including the suggested model inspires education on as well as research on sustainability. We honor and thank all the scientists whose work we cited and all those who performed research on sustainability the inner-outer gap for centuries. We are aware that this research and the proposed TSS is standing on the shoulders of giants. In awareness of the limitations and because of our interest in discussing the results, we invite educators and researchers to debate this paper and its findings, for example, on the platforms Research Gate and Academia. We also invite researchers and practitioners to use and further develop this preliminary model.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: Preprints.org, Table S1: overview reviewed literature; Table S2: factors influencing the inner -outer gap

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, investigation, formal analysis and writing— original draft preparation and editing Barbara Meyer, visualization Barbara Meyer and Elena Gaertner, writing- review Elena Gaertner and Christian Elting, advise on methodology and structure Christian Elting. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this article and our coders Miriam Döring and Melanie Lachauer. We are also grateful to all those who have discussed the model with us - at our universities, in private contexts, and at academic conferences. We also thank the various universities we have worked for during the development process, as well as our deans and colleagues there for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Armstrong McKay, D.I.; Staal, A.; Abrams, J.F.; Winkelmann, R.; Sakschewski, B.; Loriani, S.; Fetzer, I.; Cornell, S.E.; Rockström, J.; Lenton, T.M. Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science 2022, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Steffen, W.; Rockström, J.; Richardson, K.; Lenton, T.M.; Folke, C.; Liverman, D.; Summerhayes, C.P.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cornell, S.E.; Crucifix, M.; et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018, 115, 8252–8259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dewey, J. America’s public philosopher: Essays on social justice, economics, education, and the future of democracy; Columbia University Press: New York, 2021; ISBN 9780231552882. [Google Scholar]
  4. Meyer, B.E. The Tripartite Structure of Sustainability: A new educational approach to bridge the gap to wise and sustainable action. Front. Educ. 2023, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Allen, M. Understanding Pro-Environmental Behavior: Models and Messages. In Strategic Communication for Sustainable Organizations; Allen, M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2016; pp. 105–137. ISBN 978-3-319-18004-5. [Google Scholar]
  6. Binder, M.; Blankenberg, A.-K. Green lifestyles and subjective well-being: More about self-image than actual behavior? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2017, 137, 304–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Flynn, R.; Bellaby, P.; Ricci, M. The ‘Value-Action Gap’ in Public Attitudes towards Sustaina-ble Energy: The Case of Hydrogen Energy. The Sociological Review 2009, 57, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Frederiks, E.R.; Stenner, K.; Hobman, E.V. Household energy use: Applying behavioural eco-nomics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015, 41, 1385–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gao, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, J. The Impact of Pro-environmental Preference on Consumers’ Perceived Well-being: The Mediating Role of Self-Determination Need Satisfaction. Sustainability 2020, 12, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, D.; Zhao, L.; Ma, S.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moser, S.; Kleinhückelkotten, S. Good Intents, but Low Impacts: Diverging Importance of Motivational and Socioeconomic Determinants Explaining Pro-Environmental Behavior, Energy Use, and Carbon Footprint. Environment and Behavior 2018, 50, 626–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Osunmuyiwa, O.O.; Payne, S.R.; Vigneswara Ilavarasan, P.; Peacock, A.D.; Jenkins, D.P. I cannot live without air conditioning! The role of identity, values and situational factors on cooling consumption patterns in India. Energy Research & Social Science 2020, 69, 101634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Meadows, D. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Available online: https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ (accessed on 12 March 2024).
  14. Woiwode, C.; Schäpke, N.; Bina, O.; Veciana, S.; Kunze, I.; Parodi, O.; Schweizer-Ries, P.; Wamsler, C. Inner transformation to sustainability as a deep leverage point: Fostering new avenues for change through dialogue and reflection. Sustain Sci 2021, 16, 841–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Artmann, M. Human-nature resonance in times of social-ecological crisis – a relational account for sustainability transformation. Ecosystems and People 2023, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Riechers, M.; Balázsi, Á.; García-Llorente, M.; Loos, J. Human-nature connectedness as leverage point. Ecosystems and People 2021, 17, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wamsler, C. Mind the gap: The role of mindfulness in adapting to increasing risk and climate change. Sustain Sci 2018, 13, 1121–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Taylor, B.; Wright, J.; LeVasseur, T. Dark green humility: Religious, psychological, and affective attributes of proenvironmental behaviors. J Environ Stud Sci 2020, 10, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wamsler, C.; Osberg, G.; Osika, W.; Herndersson, H.; Mundaca, L. Linking internal and ex-ternal transformation for sustainability and climate action: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Global Environmental Change 2021, 71, 102373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ives, C.D.; Freeth, R.; Fischer, J. Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio 2020, 49, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Böhme, J.; Walsh, Z.; Wamsler, C. Sustainable lifestyles: Towards a relational approach. Sus-tain Sci 2022, 17, 2063–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cook-Greuter, S. Postautonomous ego development: A study of its nature and measurement. Zugl.: New Haven, Harvard Univ., Diss., 1999; Xlibris Corp: New Haven, 2010; ISBN 9781450725156. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bennett, N.; Lemoine, G.J. What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons 2014, 57, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Murray, T. Sentence completion assessments for ego development, meaning-making, and wisdom maturity, including STAGES 2017, 17.
  25. Binder, T. Ego Development for Effective Coaching and Consulting: Including a comprehensive overview of ego development theory, its validation, critique and empirical foundations; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, 2023; ISBN 9783647400051. [Google Scholar]
  26. Loevinger, J. Ego development: Conceptions and theories; Jossey-Bass: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cook-Greuter, S. Nine Levels Of Increasing Embrace In Ego Development: A Full-Spectrum Theory Of Vertical Growth And Meaning Making. Prepublication version. Adapted and expanded from S. Cook-Greuter (1985).A detailed description of the successive stages of ego-development. Revised Dec. 2013 2013, 1–95.
  28. Schubarth, W.; Speck, K. Employability und Praxisbezüge im wissenschaftlichen Studium, 2009/ September. Available online: https://www.hrk-nexus.de/fileadmin/redaktion/hrk-nexus/07-downloads/07-02-publikationen/fachgutachten_employability.pdf.
  29. Bursik, K.; Martin, T.A. Ego Development and Adolescent Academic Achievement. J of Research on Adolesc 2006, 16, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ivanova, E.; Rimanoczy, I. Revolutionizing sustainability education: Stories and tools of mind-set transformation; Routledge: Abingdon, Oxon, New York, NY, 2022; ISBN 9781000533965. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gigerenzer, G. Moral Intuition = Fast and Frugal Heuristics? In Moral Psychology; Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Ed.; The MIT Press, 2007; pp 1–26, ISBN 9780262303019.
  32. Narvaez, D.; Lapsley, D.K. The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In Character Psychology and Character Education; Lapsley, D.K., power, C., Eds.; Universi-ty of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame, 2005; pp. 140–165. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sunstein, C.R. Moral heuristics. Behav Brain Sci 2005, 28, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Krettenauer, T. The Gappiness of the “Gappiness Problem”. Human Development 2019, 62, 142–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schwartz, S.H.; Cieciuch, J.; Vecchione, M.; Davidov, E.; Fischer, R.; Beierlein, C.; Ramos, A.; Verkasalo, M.; Lönnqvist, J.-E.; Demirutku, K.; et al. Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2012, 103, 663–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Sham-seer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Klöckner, C.A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change 2013, 23, 1028–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hertz, S.G.; Krettenauer, T. Does Moral Identity Effectively Predict Moral Behavior?: A Meta-Analysis. Review of General Psychology 2016, 20, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum qualitative Sozialforschung 2000, 1. [Google Scholar]
  41. Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Verplanken, B.; Wood, W. Interventions to Break and Create Consumer Habits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 2006, 25, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wood, W.; Tam, L.; Witt, M.G. Changing circumstances, disrupting habits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005, 88, 918–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Suomala, J. The Consumer Contextual Decision-Making Model. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Klöckner, C.A.; Blöbaum, A. A comprehensive action determination model: Toward a broad-er understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, J.-M.; Kim, H.-J.; Rha, J.-Y. Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Newton, P.; Meyer, D. Exploring the Attitudes-Action Gap in Household Resource Consumption: Does “Environmental Lifestyle” Segmentation Align with Consumer Behaviour? Sustainability 2013, 5, 1211–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jennings, P.L.; Mitchell, M.S.; Hannah, S.T. The moral self: A review and integration of the literature. J. Organiz. Behav. 2015, 36, S104–S168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nucci, L. Culture, universals, and the personal. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1997, 5–22. [CrossRef]
  51. Turiel, E. The Development of Morality. In Handbook of Child Psychology; Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; Wiley, 2007, ISBN 9780471272878.
  52. Babutsidze, Z.; Chai, A. Look at me Saving the Planet! The Imitation of Visible Green Behav-ior and its Impact on the Climate Value-Action Gap. Ecological Economics 2018, 146, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Horcea-Milcu, A.-I. Values as leverage points for sustainability transformation: Two path-ways for transformation research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2022, 57, 101205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Anable, J.; Lane, B.; Kelay, T. An Evidence Base Review of Attitudes to Climate Change and Transport Behaviour. London, UK: The Department, 2006.
  55. Wilson, S.; Schellhammer, B. Indigegogy: An invitation to learning in a relational way; wbg Academic: Darmstadt, 2021; ISBN 9783534406302. [Google Scholar]
  56. Stephens, J.M. Bridging the Divide: The Role of Motivation and Self-Regulation in Explaining the Judgment-Action Gap Related to Academic Dishonesty. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Genevsky, A.; Yoon, C.; Knutson, B. When Brain Beats Behavior: Neuroforecasting Crowd-funding Outcomes. J. Neurosci. 2017, 37, 8625–8634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chandler, H.M.; Alexander, C.N.; Heaton, D.P. The Transcendental Meditation Program and Postconventional Self-Development: A 10-year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 2005, 93–109, 11–121,592. [Google Scholar]
Preprints 101615 g001
Figure 1. The arch of increasing differentiation and integration (Figure 3 in [26] (p. 16)).
Figure 1. The arch of increasing differentiation and integration (Figure 3 in [26] (p. 16)).
Preprints 101615 g001
Preprints 101615 g002
Figure 2. Tripartite Structure of Sustainability and presumed effects on sustainable action.
Figure 2. Tripartite Structure of Sustainability and presumed effects on sustainable action.
Preprints 101615 g002
Preprints 101615 g003
Figure 3. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram Identification of Studies.
Figure 3. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram Identification of Studies.
Preprints 101615 g003
Preprints 101615 g004
Figure 4. Tripartite Structure of Sustainability 2.0 © 2023 by Barbara Meyer is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Figure 4. Tripartite Structure of Sustainability 2.0 © 2023 by Barbara Meyer is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Preprints 101615 g004
Table 4. Clusters and assignement to foci.
Table 4. Clusters and assignement to foci.
Focus on self ? Self-transcendent focus
Lee et al. [47] “Market liberalist”: personal values, shop in various retail formats to maximize personal benefits, reject regulation “Internally conflicted”: No clear position, clash between personal and social values. Much shopping in hypermarkets despite moral obligations, inconvenient with regulation “Ambivalent bystander”: purse personal and social values, discrepancy between stated values and actual behavior, agree with regulation “Ethical conformist”: social values in consume, use of small local stores, welcome regulation
Newton and Meyer [48] “Enviro-sceptics”: See environment as not too important and are not willing to make sacrifices for it “Material Greens”: tend to view the environment as important, but act only pro-environmentally, if it does not cost money or time “Committed Greens”: View environment as important, purchase green-labelled products, declines use of plastic bags and volunteers time for green projects
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated